On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Thursday 10 August 2006 17:30, Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
Perhaps SPF2.5 could do away with include, redirect and friends, and
define "source" records separate from "executable" records. The
We don't need a new standard for this. If you want to compile the records to
IP addresses, just do it. If you want to improve the syntax, do the
Given the sizes of the records we are talking about, I don't see where http
helps us much.
Compiled records can be quite large. v=spf1 deals with that by
letting you stitch up to 11 records together via include/redirect. That
gives you about 5k.
I agree that compiling can and should be done now.
But doing it on the sender side eliminates the complexity of a
tiny language, and replaces it with a larger but simpler exhaustive list.
If all senders compile their SPF record (use only IP4/IP6 chained with
redirect), then we can eliminate a bunch of complexity in checking SPF.
The v=spf1 language was not a mistake. It was important to make things
as simple as possible for publishers to get the ball rolling. But once
MFROM authentication has taken hold, that complexity can be migrated to
the publisher - kind of like migrating from CISC to RISC. Publishers without
the necessary (and complex) software can continue to publish v=spf1 until,
decades from now, checkers begin to ignore it.
--
Stuart D. Gathman <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com>
Business Management Systems Inc. Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com